![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/d8f80b5863f8017700865ee38b69d4c0.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Monday 25 February 2002 8:52 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
Yep, but I think kdm's liloinfo barfs on the warning. It runs lilo -q and tries to parse the output, and I suspect this is throwing it. At least that's all I can think of, since your kdmrc looks just like mine. I suggest you investigate it, by for instance running lilo in very verbose mode and seeing why it's warning you
Interesting thread. I originally had a 30Gb drive with Windows on it (hda), and installed a second 4Gb one with Suse 7.1 (hdd). I could boot into both OSs OK. Then I took that out and replaced it with a 40Gb IBM drive. I had problems partitioning this, and had to use IBM's utility to "clear" the drive. Then I used Partition Magic to format it, and put 7.2 on it. Since then I haven't visited Windows again, but last month I tried to boot into it for a game, and couldn't, so I didn't bother. Then last week I decided to install 7.3, and went through and put lilo on the MBR. But it couldn't boot, and I had to install again and put lilo onto a floppy. lilo -q gives the same reading as Clayton's: Warning: BIOS drive 0x82 may not be accessible lilo -T geom=0x82 gives: bios=0x82, cylinders=1024, heads=255, sectors=63 EDD packet calls allowed I note that dmesg gives the following info: hda: 60036480 sectors (30739 MB) w/1916KiB Cache, CHS=3737/255/63, UDMA(66) hdd: 80418240 sectors (41174 MB) w/380KiB Cache, CHS=79780/16/63, UDMA(33) and later: hda: hda1 hda2 < hda5 hda6 hda7 hda8 hda9 hda10 hda11 > hdd: [PTBL] [5005/255/63] hdd1 hdd2 hdd3 hdd4 < hdd5 hdd6 hdd7 hdd8 hdd9 hdd10 hdd11 hdd12 hdd13 > Neither of these matches what lilo says, and I'm not clear why two similar sized disks should have such different CHS numbers. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the [PTBL] [5005/255/63] for hdd relates to the CHS via the formula (C x H) / 255, ie (79780 x 16) / 25 = 5005 - this is something to do with LBA?? Anyway, It'd be great to be able to shed a bit of light on this - somehow the drive geometry doesn't match somewhere, although the machine seems to be working fine, apart from the lack of being able to dual-boot. Kevin